Statutory interpretation

Literal rule

Words are interpreted by their plain, ordinary, dictionary meaning

Cases for the Literal rule

• Whiteley v Chappell

• London and NE Railway v Berriman

Whiteley v Chappel (1868)

Facts: D charged with trying to impersonate ‘any person entitled to vote’ - used name of dead person but whose name still appeared on voters list

Held: Not guilty - dead people ‘not entitled to vote’

London & NE Railway Co. v Berriman (1946)

Facts: V killed whilst completing maintenance on railway line - was oiling track. C (widow) sued company for failing to provide lookout which Fatal Accidents Act stated should be when someone is ‘relating or repairing the line’

Held: Claim failed - oiling decided as ‘maintaining’ not ‘relaying or repairing’

Golden rule

Minor interpretation to avoid absurdity

2 types of golden rule

• Narrow

• Broad

Cases for the Golden rule

• Adler v George (NARROW)

• Re Sigsworth (BROAD)

Narrow golden rule

When words have 2 meanings, judges can pick the most appropriate

Broad golden rule

If words have one clear meaning but would lead to an absurd and repugnant ruling, judges can modify words to avoid this

Adler v George (1964)

Facts: Official Secrets Act 1920 made it an offence to obstruct the Armed Forces ‘in the vicinity’ if a prohibited place

Held: ‘in the vicinity of’ includes within & around the prohibited place

(NARROW)

Re Sigsworth (1935)

Facts: D murdered mother, Administration of Justice Act 1925 stipulated it should pass to next of kin, which was D

Held: Would create absurd and repugnant situation where D benefitted from his crime - court ruled he was not entitled to her estate

(BROAD)

Mischief rule

Interprets the act to cover the gap in the law before the Act was passed

Cases for the Mischief rule

• Smith v Hughes

• Royal college of nursing v DHSS

Royal college of Nursing v DHSS (1981)

Facts: Abortion Act 1967 said pregnancies should be ‘terminated by a registered medical practitioner’ (only a doctor)

1972 - improvements to medical techniques, court to decide whether nurses allowed to under the Act

Held:

What is the purposive approach

Judges look for the aim or purpose of the act

Cases for the Purposive approach

R v Registrar general

What are 5 aids to interpretation

Presumptions

Intrinsic aids

Extrinsic aids

Human rights act 1998

Hansard

What are presumptions

The court will start with the presumption that certain points are applicable in all statute unless stated otherwise e.g

Statute doesn’t change common law

Mens rea is required in criminal cases

The crown is not bound by statute

What are intrinsic aids

Found within the statute:

• The long title

• Headings

• Interpretation sections

What are extrinsic aids

Found outside the act:

• Dictionaries

• Historical settings

• Case law

• Treaties

What is S3 of the HRA 1998

So far as it is possible to do so legislation must be read & given effect in a way which is compatible with the convention

What is S4 of the HRA 1998

Declaration of incompatibility

Asks the gov to change the law to bring it in line with the convention

What is S2 of the HRA 1998

Requires judges to take into account any previous decision of the ECtHR (not bound)

What is S10(2) of the HRA 1998

Fast track procedure to make amendments quickly with a compelling reason

What is Hansard & case

The official daily report of parliamentary debates & a record of what was said in the introduction of legislation

Pepper v Hart - can be used if legislation leads to an absurdity to look for the meanings of words

What are the 3 rules of language

Ejusdem generis

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius

Noscitur sociis

What is Ejusdem generis & case example

Of the same kind, general words follow a list of specific words

The general words are limited to the same kind/class/nature as the specific words

Powell v Kempton

What is Expressio unius est excusio alterius & case example

Express mention of one thing is the exclusion of all others

R v Inhabitants of Sedgley

What is Noscitur sociis & case example

A word is known by the company it keeps, words in statute must be read in context of the other words around

Muir v Keay